The issue that keeps getting ignored in this debate is the fact that a bunch of
judicial activists have ignored the Constitution in an effort to legislate from
the bench. The Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves if they saw
what is going on.

The federal judiciary has taken it upon itself to
completely subvert the other two branches of the federal government, and all
three branches of state governments. Essentially, a pack of rogue federal
judges has established a brand of anarchy in which their will is the only thing
that matters.

If laws are to have any legitimacy, they must be
established in a legitimate fashion. That is not what has happened here, and it
stains the creation of same sex marriage with illegitimacy.

It seems strange to me that any judge would rule on a measure that is being
fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. What is his purpose? Does he think that
risking a reversal on his decision will NOT hurt those who are in limbo? The
Supreme Court has already ruled that STATES have the right to set the terms and
conditions for marriage. The Supreme Court is certainly aware of the 14th
Amendment, and yet, it told the nation that STATES have the right to define
marriage. Could anyone really claim that the Supreme Court is so incompetent
that it has not read all of the Amendments to the Constitution or that it
misunderstands the limits to which those Amendments can be applied?

Judge Kimball needs to let the system work. Waiting does no damage, but
hurrying to rule may cause hurt and heartache that could easily have been
avoided had Judge Kimball thought more of the Supreme Court and of their role.

I'm pretty certain that in our system of checks and balances, that judges
can be impeached, and are appointed, by the legislative and executive branches,
respectively. It's comical that we keep hearing about "activist
judges." I'm tired of "activist legislators."

"I'm pretty certain that in our system of checks and balances, that
judges can be impeached"

Please name the last federal judge that
was impeached.

Quick review of how our government works since you
post implies a good bit of confusion about the matter.

Legislators
are suppoesed to be activists. They write the laws.

The executive
branch executes/enforces the laws on the books, though going back severl
presidents it increasingly decides to write new laws or selectively enforces.

The judiciary is supposed to ensure that legislation is not
unconstitutional and clarify execution of the law for the executive. Federal
judges are appointed by the executive branch with senate confirmation(in that
order, as opposed to your post). A federal judge could be impeached, but the
process is similar to that required for a president and impeachment is for
crimes, not unpopular rulings. The last 5 federal jusges impeached were for
bribery, sexual assault and tax evasion.

In short the people of
Utah have no direct legal avenue to change the individual, unelected federal
judges that have been taking upon themselves the powers of legislatures.

When Utah became a state in 1896, Congress required Utah to permanently ban
polygamy in its Constitution before it would grant the territory statehood.

As the Washington Times put it, "It's more than a little ironic
that Utah, which was forced to define marriage as the union of one man and one
woman as a condition for statehood, has been thrust into the role of traditional
marriage by two pivotal cases involving same-sex couples and polygamy."

Given it's history, Utah is in a somewhat unique position to argue
that it can define marriage as between one man and one woman. The State
isn't trying to "ban gay marriage" as so many headlines say.
Rather, there are many other forms of marriage, that Utah in particular is
uniquely familiar with. As a result, in 2004 Utah clarified it's form of
marriage.

Shelby used the Equal Protection Clause (14th
amendment adopted in 1868) and Due Process Clause (5th amendment adopted in
1791) to override the State's Constitution and require that Gay Marriages
be allowed in Utah. Over a hundred years ago, in a time much closer to the
meaning and context of those two clauses the Federal Government forced the State
(as well as other western States) to ban certain forms of marriage.Note, the SC
ruled in Reynolds Federal Govt COULD ban polygamy and rightly recognized the due
process and equal protection clauses had nothing to do with it.

@JCS"The issue that keeps getting ignored in this debate is the fact
that a bunch of judicial activists have ignored the Constitution in an effort to
legislate from the bench."

We're at something like 17-0 in
court cases since Windsor. Are they really all judicial activists? Some of them
were Republican appointees and many are from states that are hardly liberal
(Utah, Oklahoma, Idaho, Kentucky).

@Mike Richards"The
Supreme Court has already ruled that STATES have the right to set the terms and
conditions for marriage."

As long as it's not
unconstitutional, otherwise Loving v Virginia wouldn't have gone that
way.

@logicandtruth"As a result, in 2004 Utah clarified
it's form of marriage."

By doing something that among other
things bans gay marriage. Don't pretend that wasn't the core motive of
Amendment 3.

Delaying the inevitable, (this is going to happen) with more desperate actions
that only further exacerbates their obvious position of animus by hurting those
who were married.

MR said: "Waiting does no damage, but hurrying
to rule may cause hurt and heartache that could easily have been avoided"

–Completely backwards, Mike. You are not effected at all,
Those in limbo have to worry about hundreds of possible scenarios from medical
to legal and any of those 1200 other "Special" rights you have. Explain
how the marriages of those during that brief time (soon to permanent) has caused
harm in any tangible way to Utah and or it's citizens.

As it
stands the "Justices" are doing their job, and the lack of reasonable
evidence presented by the state(s) is making it easy.

Tradition and
Dogma are a poor excuse (no matter how many times they're used) for bad
behavior, they were wrong when used to...justify slaverytreat women
and children as propertyManifest destinyStart WarHate people
you've never met

Very few scriptures, even mention this
"sin" as compared to the ones mentioned over and over, though out old,
and new testaments, and apparently acceptable.

People getting married was chaos? I would like to use words to describe
situations where the word is not used to describe the actual situation.

I was at the Salt Lake County building when that activist judge struck down
amendment three. It was complete anarchy. There was an epidemic of people
patiently standing in line to receive a marriage license.

These same-sex couples should not have to suffer the consequences of a mistake
the State of Utah made. Utah did not get a stay because their lawyers did not
ask for one until after marriages had taken place. That means that the status
quo had changed. The following is from the court record:

"The
court’s Order did not include a stay of its judgment as none had been
requested by the State. The court had a telephone conversation with counsel from
both parties a few hours after it issued its Order.

"The State
represented to the Court that same-sex couples had already begun marrying in the
Salt Lake County Clerk’s Office and requested the court to stay its Order
of its own accord. The Court declined to issue a stay without a written record
of the relief the State was requesting, and asked the State when it was planning
to file a motion. The State was uncertain about its plans..."

but state law can't violate constitutional law, in this case, equal
protection, so the choice is for the state to either outlaw the contract of
marriage altogether, or follow the Constitution by honoring the right of any two
consenting adults to marry.

Chaos? No, there was no chaos. Only hundreds of happy couples seeking to get
married. The state asked for a straight up/down ruling and got it, and
they'll get the same ruling after the stay is heard. Congrats, Utah! We
truly are the family values state.

"Attorneys for Utah have presented a powerful case in court for the
rationality of the state’s decision to favor the man-woman definition
because it furthers a culture that encourages parents to put the needs of their
children above their own emotional fulfillment."

I've read
the state's brief, listened to the oral arguments and heard no powerful or
even understandable case. The state's arguments are circular and self
defeating and not rational at all. How does discouraging stable gay
relationships encourage adults to be less selfish? Please someone explain the
nexus. If gay relationships are normalized/destigmatized, gay people who would
otherwise stay in the closet and try to marry an opposite sex partner will then
be more likely to come out and marry another gay person instead? It is better
for gays to not be open about it and try to act like straight people? That is
better for kids? I seriously can't understand how the state thinks
stigmatizing gay relationships will strengthen families and help kids. 17+
intelligent judges can't seem to understand it either. Please explain the
"powerful case."

"Attorneys for Utah have presented a powerful case in court for the
rationality of the state’s decision to favor the man-woman definition
because it furthers a culture that encourages parents to put the needs of their
children above their own emotional fulfillment."

That's
actually an incredibly weak case because it operates under the completely
unproven assumption that same-sex married couples are poor parents.

"We believe that marriage is a matter of state law, not federal law."
But,

in 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the remaining anti-interracial
marriage laws were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the
United States. Are you saying that the Supreme Court acted inappropriately in
Loving v. Virginia? If so, you can't be serious.

Marriage is a
federal matter, because couples simply cannot be married in one state but not
another. Get real.

The only "chaos" is that facing LGBT married couples. All Utah has to
do is treat them exactly like every other married couple in the state and,
ta-da, no chaos anywhere for anyone.

The DN editorial staff are
really twisting themselves into pretzels in order to continue to support
bigotry.

"We believe that marriage is a matter of state law, not
federal law."

What happens to each of you editors when you cross
state lines? Are you suddenly single again, or are you still married? Why
should your marriage be valid when you cross state lines and not that of an LGBT
married couple? I guess it is a Federal issue, isn't it.